I spend some time looking at the web site and the articles referenced thereby and came to the conclusion that it was a partisan Republican site. That does not make it BAD even though I am partisan Democrat. The things that jumped out at me were the idea that since there would be more representatives then their wages should be cut and that would reduce the expense of the expansion. There is also the Libertarian stuff and the Atlas Shrugged stuff which are way off of my own political and economic map. But what was interesting is that some one would attempt to increase the level of democracy by appealing to Libertarians. I know, of course, that in the strict sense, this may be workable. But it is much more difficult to get Libertarians to embrace representative government than it is to get small 'd' democrats to do so...... Or, at least, one would think so.

As to the wages thing I am of the opinion that I would want high wages to make the position very attractive and to provide a good income and retirement for the representative without that representative being in any way dependent of such things as land speculation to enrich himself. The return on investment regarding representatives should come from their defensive efforts in blocking government handouts to special interests. And they would do this because they can't afford to do otherwise lest they lose their good paying jobs to a "new guy" that discovers their malfeasance in his effort to gain this very good position and income by ousting the current crook. Honest representation becomes the key to success. This "blocking of special interest handouts" is mentioned in Fed 10. As

Madison wrote: Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that, where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary.

My short piece on "Right Wing Representation" was written as a topic in the California "Enlarging State Legislatures" forum. That is probably where It should appear but if there is a way to make it do so I am unaware of it. That "effort"/forum has http://www.californiacommonwealth.com/ as the primary web site and that is the site I was speaking of. The Libertarian and right wing stuff is more in the articles and supporting documents than it is an integral part of the web site. However, the comment about stiffing the legislators in order to save money was put forth by the guy that filed the suit. I will not attempt to comment anywhere but here concerning such issues and I hope the action in California is successful. It may actually work out because the Democrats have gerrymandered California as bad as the Republicans have gerrymandered Texas. The California Republicans may be angry enough to make something happen. I would also suggest that the administrator of that site include information on the relative number and size of congressional districts as compared to the legislative. I say this again because of Federalist 10 in that it says:

Madison wrote:By enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the representatives too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests; as by reducing it too much, you render him unduly attached to these, and too little fit to comprehend and pursue great and national objects. The federal Constitution forms a happy combination in this respect; the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures.

Context is required here in that Madison was defending federal congressional districts of 30 thousand while state legislative districts were max of 5000 people. But the inference is that US Congressional districts should be much larger than state legislative districts. That does not seem to be the case in California.

Regarding californiacommonwealth.com being Republican? I don't see it. If I had to ascribe a political label, I would say libertarian.

In general, the libertarians have been quick to support Thirty-Thousand.org and enlarging representation. They quickly grasp the difference between governance and government.

When it comes to enlarging representation, I don't concern myself with whether the arguments appear to be from "republicans" or "democrats", I don't care if Thirty-Thousand.org is supported by left-wing loons or right-wing kooks, or greens, or whatever. That doesn't matter. A congress of 6,000 will be comprised of more of all of those groups, plus a huge number of independent and sensible patriotic Americans.

I am still pondering the California stuff, but I think I see it now. When a state has gone so far down the path of lunacy that it requires a 2/3rd majority in the congress to pass a budget, yet amends the State Constitution with a 51% majority vote you know you are dealing with some very strange birds. So it may well be that the California folk have now decided that a decent government in which the people are actually represented is a good Idea that can be more serviceable than the direct initiative stuff and the simple "starve the beast" approach. After all, if you want to control government then the best way to do it is to stay involved by carefully selecting your "agent" (your representative) and holding him accountable by dismissing him (or her) in the event of failure to represent. Automatic transmissions such as requirements for larger legislative majorities or filibuster/cloture votes do not fix anything, and direct democracy such as statewide initiative and referendum are too easily ab-used by special interest groups. I can see where a Libertarian might be able to make peace with that.

I examine your post, but i think that there should be more talk about the threat that have initial started, so that the reasonable amount of data'll be available for decision, However, Nice post to talk about, well i like this. Regards